Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
Fair assessments: Our school boards complain about the lack of funding, but don't do anything to make sure property assessments are fair. VND research found some districts compare sales prices with assessments and if they're badly out of line, appeal the assessment. But our story Sunday showed most never do this. Everyone should pay his fair share. Too bad many boards don't care about that. But the real issue here remains a faulty assessment system in all four of our counties, where politicians have perverted the assessment process. This is particularly true in Westmoreland and Butler counties; it's been more than 40 years since each reassessed.
Allergies: If anyone is looking for one more reason to complain about our rotten winter, here it is. Even though winter's over (supposedly), the immense wetness and warmer weather mean this year's allergy season will be way worse than normal. It's already underway and will last well into June.
Boo-hoo-hoo: Customers of Highmark Inc., the health insurance giant, learned over the weekend that last year's combined total compensation for the “nonprofit's” CEO, William Winkenwerder, was $4.3 million — not including retirement or those ubiquitous “deferred payments.” Nine other Highmark employees made more than $1 million each. One compensation consultant says Mr. W. actually runs a company twice as big for half the pay when compared to “for-profit” companies. Pass the tissues.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- The regulatory state: EPA picks a fight
- A manger’s light
- Pension reform should not be linked to a natural gas extraction tax